Reverse American Civil War

This is an idea that has been plaguing me for a little while. Is it possible that the American Civil War could've been reversed, IE. the North seceding instead of the South, had certain events throughout American history gone differently?
 
It was a possibility at certain points, most notably during the War of 1812 and the Hartford Convention, but it's doubtful all the states of the 'North' would have gone along. It's likely the New England states are the only ones which would have left the Union under such circumstances.
 
Yeah any POD has to be before the Treaty of Ghent. Because by 1815 with no external problems exacerbating internal issues, the US and especially the northern US is in such a ridiculously great position demographically and economically that the North has few plausible reasons to be unhappy.
 
Neither does the South, except for its maniacal attachment to slavery.

"The North" didn't vote as a body simply on the grounds that free states have to unite, so the demographics being on the side of the free states doesn't mean very much.
 
Neither does the South, except for its maniacal attachment to slavery.

There's also the Indian issue, which can cause problems for the South more than the North. Imagine a scenario where President Clay, or more likely President Adams Jr, tries to enforce Cherokee land rights in Georgia.

Anyways, the demographic and economic success of the "North" matter because the land rush north of the Ohio River can be characterized as a race between Yankees and Butternuts which the Yankees "won". This was pivotal in the Old Northwest's long-term preference for the "North" once these states entered the Union. And for the OP's scenario, it seems much more likely if New England feels isolated from the rest of the country.

The Treaty of Ghent is the last realistic time before which this process can be reversed or at least slowed down.
 
There's also the Indian issue, which can cause problems for the South more than the North. Imagine a scenario where President Clay, or more likely President Adams Jr, tries to enforce Cherokee land rights in Georgia.

And then there's the west (of the Mississippi) part of it.

Anyways, the demographic and economic success of the "North" matter because the land rush north of the Ohio River can be characterized as a race between Yankees and Butternuts which the Yankees "won". This was pivotal in the Old Northwest's long-term preference for the "North" once these states entered the Union. And for the OP's scenario, it seems much more likely if New England feels isolated from the rest of the country.

The Treaty of Ghent is the last realistic time before which this process can be reversed or at least slowed down.

The demographic and economic success of the "North" would require "the North" to represent something where Ohio and Massachusetts see each other as fellow "Northerners" in the same way Louisiana and Virginia are fellow Southern states.

When and where did the Old Northwest ever identify itself like that? The fact that the "North" was all pro-Union in the actual ACW isn't the same thing.
 
And then there's the west (of the Mississippi) part of it.



The demographic and economic success of the "North" would require "the North" to represent something where Ohio and Massachusetts see each other as fellow "Northerners" in the same way Louisiana and Virginia are fellow Southern states.

When and where did the Old Northwest ever identify itself like that? The fact that the "North" was all pro-Union in the actual ACW isn't the same thing.

Because it the demographic surge from New England into the Old Northwest and the economic ties after the development of the steamboat, canal and railroad that pulled the Old Northwest to the eastern seaboard part of the "North" rather than the South. Before Ghent, these ties aren't inevitable, so a Civil War with a part of the "North" breaking apart is much more likely. Although if the Northwest Ordinance gets suspended then perhaps this inevitability can be altered, although similarly I don't see that happening after 1815.
 
Because it the demographic surge from New England into the Old Northwest and the economic ties after the development of the steamboat, canal and railroad that pulled the Old Northwest to the eastern seaboard part of the "North" rather than the South. Before Ghent, these ties aren't inevitable, so a Civil War with a part of the "North" breaking apart is much more likely. Although if the Northwest Ordinance gets suspended then perhaps this inevitability can be altered, although similarly I don't see that happening after 1815.

But that doesn't mean that Ohio will vote or act politically in unison with Massachusetts.

I'm just saying the term "the North" is too broad, as if the not-Southern states formed a coherent body with one agenda. If New England secedes, that doesn't mean the Old Northwest will go along with it.
 
Top